Bill to abolish death penalty in Pa. advances out of House committee
Pennsylvania is one of 27 states where capital punishment is a legal form of criminal sentencing. However, bipartisan legislation could change that.
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee voted late last month to advance House Bill 888, which would abolish the death penalty in Pennsylvania, out of committee. Despite the sponsors being a bipartisan mix of Democrats and Republicans, the committee vote was 14-12, along party lines.
State Rep. Tim Bonner, R-17th, was one of the Republicans on the committee to vote against sending the legislation to the full House for debate. Bonner, a former prosecutor in Mercer County, supports keeping the death penalty legal under current guidelines.
“I led the Republican debate against the abolishment of the death penalty, particularly since I am the only Republican House member to have prosecuted a death-penalty case,” Bonner said in committee. “As the death penalty in the United States is limited to murders that have aggravating circumstances associated therewith — such as mass murders; contract killings; killing of children, police officers or judges — I believe that the death penalty should still be a tool within the criminal justice system.”
The death penalty is not a commonly used form of punishment in Pennsylvania compared with some other states. The last execution of a prisoner in Pennsylvania happened in 1999. In recent years, Gov. Josh Shapiro and his predecessor, Tom Wolf, have maintained a moratorium on executions.
There are 94 inmates on death row in Pennsylvania.
In Pennsylvania, the death penalty can be applied in cases where the defendant is guilty of first-degree murder, but there has to be aggravating circumstances beyond the act of killing. Those circumstances include things like killing a firefighter, law enforcement officer or certain public officials; contract killing; killing a prosecution witness to a murder or other felony committed by the defendant; or larger terrorist attacks.
Bonner said he has a great deal of respect for the Republican House legislator who introduced the legislation and he understands the reasoning for the measure. However, he said the death penalty should be maintained for aggravating circumstances in which someone “has decided to commit murder under very disturbing circumstances.”
“If we have a Sandy Hook situation in Pennsylvania, where a murderer goes into an elementary school and kills 10 to 50 of our children, do we not want the death penalty as at least a potential consideration?” Bonner asked in committee.
Much of the debate over the death penalty questions extend beyond whether capital punishment is moral or immoral, but also to whether it is a deterrent.
Bonner, however, said he does not view it as a deterrent.
“Murderers will commit murder, regardless of the death penalty,” he said.
But citing his experience as a prosecutor, he believes it should remain on the books for “the most heinous crimes.”
This includes reserving the penalty for hypotheticals, such as “mass killings at an elementary school,” the bombing of a commercial airliner or “killing thousands of people in a high-rise building.”
“The Supreme Court has often ruled that it is not a cruel and unusual punishment,” Bonner said. “We only use it in the most heinous crimes. In a typical murder, and that’s an oxymoron, but a typical murder does not qualify for the death penalty.”
Sentencing someone to capital punishment is a two-pronged process.
First, it is decided in court whether a person is guilty of murder in the first degree. Whether aggravating circumstances qualify for the death penalty, Bonner said, the sentence is decided by the same jury. The jury weighs the aggravating circumstances against “mitigating circumstances.” All 12 jurors have to agree. Otherwise, the defendant faces life in prison.
Bonner touted legislation he has previously introduced to try and bring more certainty to the process of sentencing someone to the death penalty. He said it would put a higher proof of burden on the Commonwealth.
“My point is that you have the death penalty imposed under law if you have the aggravating (circumstances) exceeding the mitigating (circumstances) by a preponderance of the evidence, which is the lowest standard of proof under law. My bill would require the Commonwealth to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. The same standard the jury adheres to when deciding guilt,” Bonner said. “I think the jurors are probably puzzled as to why there is a lesser standard to impose the death penalty than to convict someone.”
While defending his vote against advancing the legislation, he pointed to families he has worked with when prosecuting cases. For some, he said, it’s an innate form of justice in heinous crimes.
“Again, because it’s reserved for the most heinous murders, we might see in Pennsylvania 15 to 20 cases tried per year where someone has decided to seek the death penalty. It’s not commonly done, and understandably so,” Bonner said. “But when I’ve spoken with families of victims, it’s nearly unanimous that if the death penalty can be sought, they would prefer to do it.”
